[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:22:52 -0800, Dale wrote:

In article ,
Bob Moo re wrote:


Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.


Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).

I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
different animal than prohibited!).

I belong to the camp that says flaps 40 slips is no big deal, *if*
you're familiar with the airplane, it's limitations and your
limitations. In my opinion, the early 100 series Cessnas (with 40
degree flaps) speak volumes to you if you're willing to listen. The
pitch-over they speak of is very manageable (and easily
avoided) in the right hands. The airframe/controls lets you
know with plenty of warning when it is about to get unhappy, and when
that happens, all you have to do is back off in the slightest amount,
and you're back in business. I get the feeling the "avoided"
mention in the books was put in there to weed out the nerds
(and to aid in any lawsuits filed by same).

That being said, if you need to slip a 100 series Cessna
with flaps 40 hanging out, you didn't plan your approach
right, and you were too high / too fast anyway.... grins

Bela P. Havasreti

In article ,
Bela P. Havasreti wrote:


I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
different animal than prohibited!).

Yes, prohibited. Someone posted on rec.aviation saying it was
prohibited, I said BS....went to Pilot shop the next day and looked at
the Info Manuals...crow doesn't taste too bad if you use lots of salt
and pepper. G

I've slipped all the single engine Cessna's I've flown with flaps and
haven't run into any problems doing so. I agree that if you have to
slip with 40 flaps your planning might not have been the best...but it's
a nice tool to have in the bag if you have to put the airplane
somewhere...like after the engine quits. Engine out landing is why I
practice it....and I've had to use it.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:37:43 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
wrote:

Having
a tailwheel endorsement opens up your horizons. I know it did mine.

Thank you for the post.

Since I am one-eyed, 72 years old, have only 300 hours, and am a bit
of a klutz, I am probably not a great stick. I fly the Cub because it
is fun. I love the posture of the airplane and the way the cylinders
stick out at the sides like cat's whiskers. I like to fly low with the
door open and look down at the New Hampshire countryside. (Getting to
Maine or Massachusetts is a huge adventure, and I have yet to cross
the river into Vermont.)

I even love to say "The Cub is turning final..." And I absolutely dote
on making wheel landings, especially when they don't commence with a
bounce.

Though I rent Zero Six Hotel "wet", I also appreciate the fact that
yesterday I flew 1.7 hours and burned only 6.9 gallons of gas.

Whether learning in a taildragger made me a better pilot or not, it
did make me a happy pilot. I started taking lessons at 68 for a hoot.
I doubt very much that I would still be flying had I not soloed in the
Cub.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

wrote in message: The only time I'm not
putting pressure
on the rudder pedals for some sort of flight direction correction, is
during cruise in calm winds. Coincidentally, you don't need to apply
rudder in taildraggers at that point either.

Wrong. I have to keep my feet on the rudders all the time. Just the nature
of my correctly-rigged airplane. As a side note: I don't think in terms of
left or right rudder as one does in a C-172. It's just "rudder", a
combination of both. Our birds are very sensitive on the controls, but as a
result, they become a part of the pilot. I think it and Lester does it.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
...
On 20 May 2004 07:17:17 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

I made up a term for the disease that afflicts tricycle pilots:
Somnopedosis. It means "sleepy feet." No trike pilot realizes how lazy
his feet are until he gets into a taildragger. I have a friend who
flies bizjets all over the world for a living. One of his colleagues,
a 6000-hour jet jock, would laugh at the taildragger training stuff.
My friend, who also has many hours in a 185, took this fella for some
dual in the 185. After an hour the guy had his "tail between his
legs," as my friend put it, and made no more noises about the value of
tailwheel training.

I understand, I really do. But I actually do use the rudder pedals in
the 172. I have to use them during crosswind takeoff's and during
normal takeoffs, to hold the nose straight while climbing, to hold the
nose straight while descending and also to get the airplane straight
when reaching for the runway.
I understand that in addition to that, taildragger pilots need to be
sharply aware of wind while taxiing. "Ya got ta fly it till it's tied
down", is something I've heard for 30 years. On the other hand, I was
trained to pay attention to the wind while taxiing the 172 too. I
also understand that because the weight of the airplane is behind the
main wheels, taildraggers would very much like to swap ends during
rollout, should the pilot be so kind as to let it.

I have a friend who owns a taildragger and he really HATES landing it
on paved runways because it's just much more sensitive to input on
those kinds of surfaces. Give him a grass field which is much more
forgiving, and he's happy.

Corky Scott

There is no AD on my 1962 172C. I slipped with full flaps all the time. No
big deal.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"JFLEISC" wrote in message
...
No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.



I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized'
operations.
I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be
"unauthorized". It
also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those
listed
below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that
if it
wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip
placard,
it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever
you
want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me
the AD
number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

I don't know if this is relevant, but given the broad range of model years
being discussed, it may be useful...

I recently read an article about the evolution of the POH since the 1970's.
The article touched on the changes to the format and the information
included, but it also discussed the changing legal implications of the data
in the POH.

Is it possible that Cessna's changing attitude toward slips has been due
less to changes in the aircraft and more to changes in the legal climate?




"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:22:52 -0800, Dale wrote:

In article ,
Bob Moo re wrote:


Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say
anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and
flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.


Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).

I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
different animal than prohibited!).

I belong to the camp that says flaps 40 slips is no big deal, *if*
you're familiar with the airplane, it's limitations and your
limitations. In my opinion, the early 100 series Cessnas (with 40
degree flaps) speak volumes to you if you're willing to listen. The
pitch-over they speak of is very manageable (and easily
avoided) in the right hands. The airframe/controls lets you
know with plenty of warning when it is about to get unhappy, and when
that happens, all you have to do is back off in the slightest amount,
and you're back in business. I get the feeling the "avoided"
mention in the books was put in there to weed out the nerds
(and to aid in any lawsuits filed by same).

That being said, if you need to slip a 100 series Cessna
with flaps 40 hanging out, you didn't plan your approach
right, and you were too high / too fast anyway.... grins

Bela P. Havasreti

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:36:55 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
wrote:

wrote in message: The only time I'm not
putting pressure
on the rudder pedals for some sort of flight direction correction, is
during cruise in calm winds. Coincidentally, you don't need to apply
rudder in taildraggers at that point either.

Wrong. I have to keep my feet on the rudders all the time. Just the nature
of my correctly-rigged airplane. As a side note: I don't think in terms of
left or right rudder as one does in a C-172. It's just "rudder", a
combination of both. Our birds are very sensitive on the controls, but as a
result, they become a part of the pilot. I think it and Lester does it.

Deb, ease up for pete's sake. I didn't mean that the feet weren't on
the rudder pedals, I meant you don't (or shouldn't much) need to use
them at cruise because the airplane (C172) is rigged to fly neutral at
in that regime. All airplanes are rigged that way, or should be,
because the majority of the time in flight is spent at cruise.

Even the Messerschmitt Bf 109, one of the least directionally stable
fighters of WWII to fly, was rigged to be neutral in cruise. Did this
mean the pilots flew it without their feet on the rudder bar when
cruising? Of course not, but at least they did not have to apply
constant pressure on one or the other pedals to make it fly straight.
They did have to constantly correct heading though as the airplane was
designed with a certain amount of directional instability so that it
responded to the controls quickly.

If your airplane requires constant rudder pressure to center the ball
during normal cruise, something is wrong. What I mean is, it should
not fly in a constant yaw to one side. If it constantly hunts back
and fourth, you have my sympathies.

Corky Scott

"JFLEISC" wrote in message
...

Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips


Noooooooo!!!!! Spare us!

The infamous "slips with flaps" flame war is legendary around here. Do a
Google search on it and you will see what I mean.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:10:18 -0800, Dale wrote:

Well, at least crow gets more palatable with each serving.... 8^)

I'm with the other guy who posted that perhaps Cessna lawyers
got the word "avoided" changed to "prohibited" in the manuals.

Then later, more Cessna lawyers talked the engineers into
limiting the flaps to 30 degrees (to weed out even more
nerds!).

Bela P. Havasreti

In article ,
Bela P. Havasreti wrote:


I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
different animal than prohibited!).

Yes, prohibited. Someone posted on rec.aviation saying it was
prohibited, I said BS....went to Pilot shop the next day and looked at
the Info Manuals...crow doesn't taste too bad if you use lots of salt
and pepper. G

I've slipped all the single engine Cessna's I've flown with flaps and
haven't run into any problems doing so. I agree that if you have to
slip with 40 flaps your planning might not have been the best...but it's
a nice tool to have in the bag if you have to put the airplane
somewhere...like after the engine quits. Engine out landing is why I
practice it....and I've had to use it.

found 2 years (66 and 67 I think it was) that do Prohibit slips
with flaps.

Was it actually in the "Operating Limitations" section, or just
mentioned somewhere in the text of the POH? I'm just wondering if the
pilot who wrote the procedures of the book exceeded his authority in
using the word "prohibited". I couldn't find a "prohibited" placard
on my CD of type certificates for any 172 model.